District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.455/2019.
Date of Institution: 17.09.2019.
Date of Order: 27.10.2022.
Dev Kumar son of Shri Hukum Chand resident of 425/1, Link road, Old Faridabad Tehsil and Distt. Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. PAYTM, 136, ist floor, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, Delhi – 110 019 through its Principal Owner.
2. PAYTM B-121, Sector-5, Noida – 210301, through its Principal Owner.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. K.S.Rathore, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Amardeep Yadav, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had an account with the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 vide account No. 9818440184 in the name of Dev Kumar/complainant. On 6.5.2018 the complainant had conversation with the opposie party through their customer care No. 9004100113 also available on the site with a request to increase the limit of the said account. The opposite party asked the complainant to deposit Rs.29,000/- which the complainant deposited through credit card No. 4375516589748007 of ICICI Bank on 06.05.2018, with an assurance from the opposite party that the amount would shown within 24 hours. On 7.5.2018 the complainant again called the opposite party but the opposite party assured that the amount would be shown soon, but to the utmost surprised of the complainant, the amount of Rs.29,000/- after being deducted from the account of the complainant into the account of the opposite party, had not been transferred in to the PATYM, account No. 9819440184 of the complainant. The opposite parties assured the security, assured timed work, services, and safety of the money of its every consumer, including the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 29.05.2018 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) refund the amount of Rs.29,000/- as mentioned or transfer the said amount of Rs.29,000/- in to the PAYTM account NO. 9818440184 alongwith interest @ 24% PM.
b) pay Rs.5000/- on account of loss to the complainant on account of deficiency of services.
c) pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment .
c) pay Rs. 25,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had registered its Paytm wallet account through his registered mobile No. 9818440184. It was the case of the complainant that admittedly, he had received a call from an unknown mobile NO. 9004100113 on 06.05.2018, allegedly posing himself as Customer care of opposite parties and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.29,000/- from his credit card to increase the limit of said account with an assurance from the unknown person that the said amount would be reflected in the account of the complainant within 24 hours, however the said amount could not be reflected in the complainant’s account. Admittedly, the customer had confirmed in present complaint that he had received a phishing call regarding account limit of Paytem account and said unknown person suggested complainant to deposit Rs.29,000/- and consequently said transaction had been made willfully by the complainant for the reasons best known to the complainant and from deduction from his ICICI credit card. It was submitted that opposite parties never call/intimates its customers for extension of any account limit or transferring any amount from its customers bank/card. The opposite parties were having a defined and dedicated Customer Grievance Redressal Policy which specifically highlights and outlines a structured grievance redressal mechanism available to customers for escalating their complaints within the Bank to obtain a resolution. The Grievance Redressal Mechanism clearly enumerates 24*7 No. 0120-4456-456 for redressal of Customer’s grievance and the mobile number highlighted by the complainant 9004100113 did not at all belong to Opposite parties herein. Hence, the complainant had clearly neglected and violated the applicable Grievance Redressal Mechanism of opposite parties which had been categorically agreed by the complainant at the time of availing services of opposite parties herein. The complainant in the present case, in place of following prescribed and predefined channel of Customer Grievance, had casually opted to take untrustworthy and unreliable sources, as per his personal whims and fancies and had himself performed the said transaction. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– PAYTM & Anr. with the prayer to: a) refund the amount of Rs.29,000/- as mentioned or transfer the said amount of Rs.29,000/- in to the PAYTM account NO. 9818440184 alongwith interest @ 24% PM. b) pay Rs.5000/- on account of loss to the complainant on account of deficiency of services. c) pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment . c) pay Rs. 25,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Dev Kumar, Ex.C-1 to C-3 - notice u/s 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Ex.C-4 – statement of Dev Kumar, Ex.C-5 & 6 - Details of account,, Ex.C-7 & 8– Credit Card E-Statement, Ex.C-9 – readable, Ex.C-10 – legal notice, Ex.C-11 to 12 – postal receipts,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated
and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties – Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Akshay Garg, Authorised Representative of Paytm Payments Bank Ltd., having its office at A-6, VJ Business Sector-125, Noida,
6. In this case, the complainant admitted that he had received a call from an unknown mobile NO. 9004100113 on 06.05.2018, allegedly posing himself as Customer care of opposite parties and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.29,000/- from his credit card to increase the limit of said account with an assurance from the unknown person that the said amount would be reflected in the account of the complainant within 24 hours, however the said amount could not be reflected in the complainant’s account. Admittedly, the customer had confirmed in present complaint that he had received a phishing call regarding account limit of Paytem account and said unknown person suggested complainant to deposit Rs.29,000/- and consequently said transaction had been made willfully by the complainant for the reasons best known to the complainant and from deduction from his ICICI credit card. The complainant has also shared the OTP and the other secret code to the caller.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 27.10.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
